Recommended Posts

So paying for a meal while you are working is showing leadership. Hmm. Bowling Club mentality I think.

Being a Director comes with, by law, compulsory duties, on the basis that the remunerations of the directors in the accounts is nil then this is classed as voluntary. Its semantics that turning up on a Saturday is not compulsory. However there are certain individuals on here who would berate the board if they were in the stands on a Saturday and not representing the club while entertaining the free loading visiting team/board. The company accounts demonstrate over the years a track record of the directors regularly putting money in to the club in the way of Directors Loans to see the club through cashflow issues.

Bowling club mentality is everyone on the board expecting a freebie! Or the chance to thieve the sausage rolls.

missed my point.. being a director is voluntary, if you are only in it for a free lunch and the opportunity to look big and important you are the wrong choice. Which current directors have put money into the club?

I know 1300 other people who have put in tens of thousands and expect nowt in return.

Link to post

Share on other sites

To be honest it is pretty clear, save it is save it. Next quarter if there is a vote to use £16k or save it again it'll be fan choice. Some fans may want to save it for a rainny day but the bottom line is this is a democracy. If people want to spend £16k next quarter then that's how they'll vote, to take that right away from us just because a few fans want a rainny day fund right now isn't fair. How can they be any clearer when no one knows the proposal for next quarter?

Got to remember us funding these items frees money up for OUR FOOTBALL CLUB the money they would of used is saved for other things as our club sees fit. What's wrong with that? this us versus them mentality is crazy to me. The current board care about the football club as much as we do. Why is them holding more cash such a bad thing?

Unfortunately, it's not pretty clear for the question being asked.

Back to the original point, it was suggested to SMISA that an option was added to each & every vote for the £2 pot money (or a portion of it) to be saved for when The Buds were bought. At no time has it been suggested to suspend the quarterly vote/spend. Therefore, your assumption of an impingement on democracy is incorrect.

It has been a request to put the option on the vote to save that particular £2 pot, not carry it over but save it for when SMISA are the majority shareholder. That would be for the SMISA members to vote on & decide spend or save. That's not compromising democracy either.

In the past 20+ years, St Mirren has not been cash strapped, in fact, every penny has been a prisoner for the most part. But in the past year or two, St Mirren has brought in sizeable transfer fees that should mean, it can afford to pay it's own bills. Fir me, it is not a case of them & us.

One day SMISA will need some cash reserves of its own. Why, in your opinion, is looking to the future & building up a bit of a bank balance for when the buds is bought, such a bad thing?

Back to the original point, it was suggested to SMISA that an option was added to each & every vote for the £2 pot money (or a portion of it) to be saved for when The Buds were bought. At no time has it been suggested to suspend the quarterly vote/spend. Therefore, your assumption of an impingement on democracy is incorrect.

It has been a request to put the option on the vote to save that particular £2 pot, not carry it over but save it for when SMISA are the majority shareholder. That would be for the SMISA members to vote on & decide spend or save. That's not compromising democracy either.

In the past 20+ years, St Mirren has not been cash strapped, in fact, every penny has been a prisoner for the most part. But in the past year or two, St Mirren has brought in sizeable transfer fees that should mean, it can afford to pay it's own bills. Fir me, it is not a case of them & us.

One day SMISA will need some cash reserves of its own. Why, in your opinion, is looking to the future & building up a bit of a bank balance for when the buds is bought, such a bad thing?

the £2 fund was set up as an additional fund to support short-term costs and community project planning over the course of the proposal. I fully appreciate the benefits in starting a reserve fund however giving the circumstances that (I believe) not one vote has resulted in carrying over money even by a quarter, what's the chances of fans wanting it carried over indefinitely? I personally don't see SMISA and St Mirren as separate forces. I see them as a vehicle to deliver the best for the team I support. A big part of that for me is fore-filling the wishes of my club now, not in several years time. If the funds can go towards costs now meaning the club keeps the money they would of spent for something else then I'm happy. Say we don't spend money now, fortunes change and we end up in league 1 like we nearly did last season. Would having this safety pot be great when we go fan owned? Of course not, the revenue the club would have lost would be much larger. Why not use the money now in ways that save the club money for spending elsewhere that might get us back into the top flight and generating more money and even better academy players?

Why put off benefiting the money now for our own needs when we're fan owned? The money could be used now and the club has use for the funds now so that'll get my vote and looking at the way most people vote, it'll always get a majority vote. Guess it boils down to help our club now, save money for ourselves in 8/9 years time. One choice for me.

Final point is, fans can still vote no (they don't seem to but they can) if that money is carried SMISA can then clarify what that means but what's the point in debating something that never happens?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Unfortunately, it's not pretty clear for the question being asked. Back to the original point, it was suggested to SMISA that an option was added to each & every vote for the £2 pot money (or a portion of it) to be saved for when The Buds were bought. At no time has it been suggested to suspend the quarterly vote/spend. Therefore, your assumption of an impingement on democracy is incorrect. It has been a request to put the option on the vote to save that particular £2 pot, not carry it over but save it for when SMISA are the majority shareholder. That would be for the SMISA members to vote on & decide spend or save. That's not compromising democracy either. In the past 20+ years, St Mirren has not been cash strapped, in fact, every penny has been a prisoner for the most part. But in the past year or two, St Mirren has brought in sizeable transfer fees that should mean, it can afford to pay it's own bills. Fir me, it is not a case of them & us. One day SMISA will need some cash reserves of its own. Why, in your opinion, is looking to the future & building up a bit of a bank balance for when the buds is bought, such a bad thing?

I don't think it's a bad idea. Just all votes have been in favour of short term gains so I don't see much of a point in it being any more clear other than voting no.

For me, I'll always put the club first. If they want money to fund short term projects now, let's give them it now to hopefully improve the position when we get the club. Why save money for nine years when we can make a difference now? For me it's not us and them. In the here and now St Mirren can use that money for good and if we fund aspects of the club, the money the club would have used can be invested elsewhere.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Re assuring to see, and contrary to what a few heavily suggested here that the Smisa membership do indeed have their own minds despite the SMFC chairmans demeaning attempts to prove otherwise. We can only hope he sees sense now, and refrains from interfering in the independent supporters association's business.

its dissapointing that the opportunity to deliver a message, and vote no to the obscene funding of the Academy, and insulting pitch to fund match balls for the first team was passed up, but thats democracy and there will I am sure be plenty of other opportunities to shine a light on members funds being frittered away on items the club have akready budgeted for.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Re assuring to see, and contrary to what a few heavily suggested here that the Smisa membership do indeed have their own minds despite the SMFC chairmans demeaning attempts to prove otherwise. We can only hope he sees sense now, and refrains from interfering in the independent supporters association's business. its dissapointing that the opportunity to deliver a message, and vote no to the obscene funding of the Academy, and insulting pitch to fund match balls for the first team was passed up, but thats democracy and there will I am sure be plenty of other opportunities to shine a light on members funds being frittered away on items the club have akready budgeted for.

St Mirren football club is the entity that we want to benefit. They gave us their opinion on a voting option, nothing more nothing less. Democracy only works when decisions are informed and it turns out majority of fans were still wanting to fund this.

As for it being "obscene" and "insulting" that fans would choose to give money to a project that would financially benefit their football club. That's just downright silly.

The money is not thrown away, it allows the club to use what they would have spent, on other aspects of St Mirren football club. Get my vote (and majority of voting members vote) every time.

You can disagree with the way the vote has went but to be critical of the will of paying members... strange.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

St Mirren football club is the entity that we want to benefit. They gave us their opinion on a voting option, nothing more nothing less. Democracy only works when decisions are informed and it turns out majority of fans were still wanting to fund this.

As for it being "obscene" and "insulting" that fans would choose to give money to a project that would financially benefit their football club. That's just downright silly.

The money is not thrown away, it allows the club to use what they would have spent, on other aspects of St Mirren football club. Get my vote (and majority of voting members vote) every time.

You can disagree with the way the vote has went but to be critical of the will of paying members... strange.

Funny... I was sure you said "the majority of voting members" wouldnt disagree with the chairman's ill conceived attempts at trying to run Smisa. But they did..! Lets see how many more vote to disagree with the insulting items put forward by the club.

match balls ffs... would that mean if members voted no we would be asking visiting teams if they could "Bung-A-Baw" our way..?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Funny... I was sure you said "the majority of voting members" wouldnt disagree with the chairman's ill conceived attempts at trying to run Smisa. But they did..! Lets see how many more vote to disagree with the insulting items put forward by the club.

match balls ffs... would that mean if members voted no we would be asking visiting teams if they could "Bung-A-Baw" our way..?

Well no I didn't say that. I said the majority of voting members wouldn't be against the chairman giving his opinion. At last count I think I've noted three paying (I assume they're SMISA members, might not be) members that for reasons I can only put down to, not wanting/ caring about the views of their football club, that have been unhappy with GS input. Why on earth would you think getting the input for the club you support is a bad thing? It actually beggars belief.

The match ball comment, I assume you either completely fail to understand how it works or it's a bit of satire. Concerning that I can't tell for sure based on some of your previous strange comments. SMISA pay X amount for equipment that means St Mirren save X amount on paying for said equipment. X amount is then available for the club to put elsewhere. (wherever it sees fit) Am I happy to have St Mirren decide where X amount goes? Of course I am, that's the club I support and it frees up funds for them. Again beggars belief you don't see the positive in freeing up funds for our club...